[Squeakfoundation]WeakArray bug (was Re: [UPDATES] 3.5gamma)
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Sat Apr 5 03:52:54 CEST 2003
> We need more explicit reviews.
Or more explicit goals ;-) The fix fixed exactly the bug which was reported,
namely that the meta class hierarchy doesn't get recompiled correctly.
Nowhere the fix claimed that it "fixes class builder" because there is no
definition for it unless you identify the bugs. A word about the SUnit tests
I wrote - I wanted this to be a start for more elaborate tests and therefore
I wrote a bunch of tests which ensure critical invariants of ClassBuilder.
To be more explicit: Those tests actually validate if the reshaping
machinery maps instance state correctly. It is not (never has been, never
was intended to) a test for recompiling the entire class hierarchy. The
original reason for this was that on a (non-fixed) system, failing the test
of recompiling the meta class hierarchy would mean your system is @!#^ed.
Nothing I would expect from a test - and therefore this test can only be
added once the bug is fixed.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeakfoundation-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> [mailto:squeakfoundation-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org]
> On Behalf Of Daniel Vainsencher
> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 3:14 AM
> To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
> Subject: [Squeakfoundation]WeakArray bug (was Re: [UPDATES] 3.5gamma)
> About the 3.5/3.6 decision, sounds reasonable to me.
> About why we got to the state where one of us says a bug
> critical enough
> to stop the release from going out, when we're in gamma - I think we
> included the fix with the implicit goal of "fixing the class builder"
> but with the explicit SUnit test of "classes with instance
> variables and
> subclasses can be reshaped properly".
> Nobody said "this fix does X, which is enough. It doesn't do Y, but we
> can live with that", where Y would be "allow the whole
> hierarchy to get
> rebuilt", for example.
> We need more explicit reviews.
> Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com> wrote:
> > Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> > >
> > > <shifting to sqf list>
> > >
> > > That's an interesting point. Does that mean we actually
> delay 3.5, when
> > > the 3.6 update stream has already started? another
> question is, how did
> > > we get into gamma, when apparently, one of our two goals
> for the release
> > > isn't actually achieved?
> > Tim did mention this as a bug on March 14. There wasn't
> any mention of
> > whether it was a serious enough problem to try to fix in
> 3.5, so I ignored it
> > for the moment, hoping that someone would come up with a fix.
> > It did appear to be possibly related to the ClassBuilder
> problem, but that
> > wasn't certain, either. The problem occured with or
> without the ClassBuilder
> > fix.
> > Just now I did a quick check of when the bug was
> introduced. I was guessing
> > that maybe Andreas introduced it with the ClassBuilder
> refactoring/cleanup in
> > 3.4alpha, which was when the other ClassBuilder bug was
> introduced. However,
> > that was not the case... I tested 3.2 and the bug is there,
> too. Turns out
> > this bug is as old as the hills... the bug exists back in
> 2.6! It does not
> > exist in 2.4, though. (It's always nice to have old images
> lying around. :-)
> > I didn't have a 2.5 image handy, though.)
> > So, given that the bug is 3+ years old, and we don't yet
> have a fix that we
> > agree on, I think it's pretty safe to say that we don't
> need to address this
> > in 3.5. As soon as someone comes up with a good fix, we
> can include it in
> > 3.6alpha. (Maybe Brent's fix is sufficient, I don't know,
> but it hasn't
> > gotten any feedback yet.)
> > - Doug Way
> > > Daniel
> > >
> > > Tim Rowledge <tim at sumeru.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > > > Daniel Vainsencher <danielv at netvision.net.il> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > AFAICT, this fix is KCP territory. Unless there is a
> very good reason
> > > > > otherwise, I would await their recommendation (and
> not delay the
> > > > > release).
> > > > Well since the 3.5 release was purported to be mostly
> to include a fix
> > > > for a very similar bug and the bug in question has
> pretty similar
> > > > effects - cannot recompile a number of classes - I'd
> say that without a
> > > > fix we really shouldn't even consider 3.5 in beta in
> any meaningful
> > > > sense.
> > > >
> > > > tim
> > > > --
> > > > Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu,
> > > > Spellchecker not found.
> Press -- to continue ...
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Squeakfoundation mailing list
> > > Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
> > _______________________________________________
> > Squeakfoundation mailing list
> > Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
More information about the Squeakfoundation